:::::::::: The problem of http://wiki.gotux.net is: Most of the information is duplication of Arch Wiki page, with just a little small improvement there. Currently, there is discussion in , thestinger and me are try to [[User talk:TuxLyn|convince him to contribute to Arch Wiki instead of maintain a seperate wiki site]]. We can wait for some time for the result. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::: The problem of http://wiki.gotux.net is: Most of the information is duplication of Arch Wiki page, with just a little small improvement there. Currently, there is discussion in , thestinger and me are try to [[User talk:TuxLyn|convince him to contribute to Arch Wiki instead of maintain a seperate wiki site]]. We can wait for some time for the result. -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 02:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::Also TuxLyn's link in [[Getting Involved]] should be updated, but I'm not doing it because I guess you two are waiting for TuxLyn himself to fix it, right? Let's see what happens then ;) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::Also TuxLyn's link in [[Getting Involved]] should be updated, but I'm not doing it because I guess you two are waiting for TuxLyn himself to fix it, right? Let's see what happens then ;) -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

+

:::::::::::: Update: TuxLyn fix most of the broken link himself. So I am fine with most of it except the link in [[Getting Involved]]. It says "Personal Arch-related wiki". But it is not. The site is more general than before. It is not arch specific anymore. So I am planning to remove this link. Any objection? -- [[User:Fengchao|Fengchao]] ([[User talk:Fengchao|talk]]) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

===Polls===

===Polls===

Revision as of 01:38, 5 March 2013

In this page you can list:

Edits that a contributor made to the wiki without a proper explanation (that is what the Summary field is for) and whose validity you lack the knowledge to judge by yourself. In this case, please add a link to the edit in question with a brief explanation why you think it should be investigated. Consider contacting the contributor to ask for an explanation, which is often an effective way to solve these issues. Please report the eventual answer (if any) below the initial report. You can also link to a discussion already started in the talk page of the edited article.

Links to discussions started in talk pages requesting to add, delete, or modify some content in the respective articles which you do not have sufficient knowledge to answer definitively by yourself.

Please sign your edits and feel free to comment on others' reports. Discussions will be deleted 3 days after closing.

New templates

Just a heads-up, if you're OK with them [1][2] , please close the report :-) -- Karol 07:42, 14 December 2011 (EST)

If we start applying them consistently in all the tables, probably adding a proper rule in Help:Style, then I'm ok with them, since coloring cells in tables is not very straightforward even with wiki syntax.

Note their Chinese counterparts have been created too: Template:是 and Template:否. Since those templates' code is very flexible, I suggest replacing them with only 2 templates, Template:Y and Template:N, which would produce "Yes" and "No" by default, but whose first optional argument would allow them to display any other string, including translations, without the need to have localized versions of each template.

Going even a bit further, since some tables use additional colors, we may base the templates' names on their color instead of their meaning, so that we would have Template:G, Template:R, Template:Y, Template:B, and if necessary also Template:P and Template:O (purple and orange, just to complete the secondary colors). These templates should require the first argument, but I think they would be easy to use anyway, for sure much easier than the current | style="color:...." | blabla.

This template group would also give us an excuse to delete The Status Table Series and related templates, since they have a too narrow field of application and practically just create nested tables in the end, thus giving almost no real advantage. -- Kynikos 13:13, 24 December 2011 (EST)

I support this idea. Similar to the Template:BoxCOLOUR templates, a series of table cell coloured templates would ensure consistency across articles. -- pointone 16:46, 19 January 2012 (EST)

So good :) However I don't consider this an urgent task, I'm linking this discussion from a new entry among my numerous template ideas in my todo list. Of course if you or someone else want to implement it, just go for it. Just reminding that the implementation should be accompanied by some related style rules.

Also note that among my template-related ideas there's one about the Box COLOR series that seems to go in the opposite direction than the cell color templates, but I think that the colors for the Note, Warning and Tip templates should be reserved for them, and not be usable in other ways.

I'm not sure if we should merge them. I think adding a merge tag to the articles (we should really have the "merge to" and "merge from" templates like Wikipedia) and getting some more input would be the way to go. thestinger 13:08, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Ok, we can wait for more opinions :) Also this very report can be enough at the moment. I'm adding the Merge to/from idea to my todo list among the many others, of course if you want to implement it just go for it. -- Kynikos 09:02, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Jumbo frames' "Real World Examples" section

Jumbo_Frames#Real_World_Examples <-- This section doesn't seem fitting on our wiki. This section just seems to be an advertisement for jumbo frames, and I think it should be removed. And I should also note that the methodology is a bit unreliable, in my opinion. To truly test just the difference that jumbo frames makes, one should make a RAM disk so hard disk performance is completely removed from the equation. And if we really want to sell people on switching to jumbo frames, I would rather we simply provide a one-liner plus a link to a technical white paper, IEEE conference paper, etc.
Does anyone else agree?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if we can really consider that section as an advertisement, however it's true that benchmarking sections are not really Arch-specific, and would probably better fit a blog or some other kind of website, which could be linked from the article. A similar article is SSD Benchmarking, for example.

On the other hand it looks like an original work and I would hesitate a bit before simply deleting it, maybe moving the "Using Jumbo Frames on Arch Linux" section more to the top could be a start. User:Graysky seems to have added that section in 2009, he may be interested in discussing also about the reliability of the methodology, but I would do that in Talk:Jumbo Frames (possibly adding e.g. Template:Accuracy to the article), since this talk page is more used for discussing recent changes reports :)

I just found this discussion. I do not feel that the examples I posted represent an advertisement in any way. They do represent a concrete example of leveraging the topic of the page on which they are written. They are a bit dated however. I agree with the RAM disk suggestion. If I get dome time over the weekend, I might update on more modern hardware under more controlled conditions.

Minimum supported kernel version

I've decided to report this edit here without adding a simple quick report first because I think this is quite urgent: what's the minimum kernel version we're supporting in the wiki? While it's true that linux is now at 3.4.3, linux-lts is for example still at 3.0.35, so I think in these cases we should use flexible wordings and examples so as to cover all the supported possibilities.

sorry, I didn't really think about LTS, so I agree that this edit can be undone (edit: also this doesn't really match with the rest of section which still talks about loading this module manually. Not sure what I was thinking there ;) ). On this particular page, the note I added earlier should do it for now, although a more flexible wording might indeed be better. 65kid (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, I've tried to improve the situation a little bit, however my intention was also to discuss in general if we should define a minimum supported kernel version for wiki articles (this discussion should probably be moved to Help talk:Style now). I think that linux-lts's version could be a good reference point, do we have other opinions? -- Kynikos (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We should take the kernel version of official iso image into consideration. User should upgrade to latest version immediately. But before that, users have to config network. For some wireless cards, it is very kernel version specific. -- Fengchao (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So true, I'll find a way to add this to the style guide. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

borderline spam/promotion

TuxLyn (contribs) has been adding links to a site they host. It appears that they have written the content though, so it's strange that they aren't contributing here but are instead linking to short snippets on their site.

We seem to have no problem with directing people to e.g. Allan's blog but I didn't know about the aria2c link. -- Karol (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@karol: I don't think thestinger is criticising the fact that this user is linking to his wiki instead of posting the snippets directly here; I wouldn't mind either, provided the linked content is pertinent, useful and original (or at most modified respecting the original licence). Instead, I think he's using this fact to support the theory that TuxLyn is trying to attract users to his profit-making website (because of the ad), and IMVHO he may even be right, although I'm not accusing anybody of anything here, he may just be doing that to cover the expenses for the domain and the web space, which could even be considered legitimate.

Maybe we should elaborate some policy for links to web pages with advertisements, although I don't think it would be easy, since we link to various websites that display ads (of any kind) besides wiki.gotux.net (distrowatch.com just to mention one, but more could be found with e.g. a search like this), and I don't know if we can just do without them (and how practical it would be to get rid of all the existing links and check that no more are added).

Linking to content published by individuals is fine, but it should add value to the articles. For example it wouldn't make sense to have a long tutorial on TCP/IP here when there are so many good resources to link to. However, most of the articles on the gotux wiki are just alternate versions of the content here, and they're out-of-reach when it comes to anyone else fixing inaccuracies and improving them.

I do think this is a good faith attempt to improve documentation, but since 95% of their edits made here have been to add links to a certain site, it seems like a way to "protect" content from collaborative editing, while still reaching the ArchWiki audience.

Since I don't think we'll be able to write general rules to define the usefulness of a linked page and the nature of ads it can/cannot display, we have to decide case by case. On the basis of your arguments, would you vote for the removal of all the links to wiki.gotux.net, only the aria2 one or none?

In my view, <<"protect[ing]" content from collaborative editing, while still reaching the ArchWiki audience>>, even if proved/provable, can be a legitimate behaviour, if done in a non-spamming way as he seems to be doing and provided the linked website doesn't have a commercial purpose. Does wiki.gotux.net have a commercial purpose? In http://wiki.gotux.net/about he says no, and actually I don't think he's displaying more ads than many other websites/blogs around, so for the moment I'd leave the link(s) there.

Hehehehe, I wanted to post the same things: the links to *.gotux.net and the trademark issue. Good to see I was for once going the right way ;P

Wrt the trademark issue, I'm afraid I don't understand neither GoTux' nor Arch Linux' policy so I can't say yay or nay. I want to ask for a general clarification on the trademark issue (and f.e. what http://www.archarm.org/ is), but I will open a separate report for that or ask on the ML or at trademarks@archlinux.org. -- Karol (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the question is not "Whether he make money by adding link?". The more precise question should be

"Whether the information the site provide is valuable to ArchWiki ?" or

Is the link worth reading by reader of the Arch Wiki page?

If the answer is yes, I do no care how much money he get by providing valuable information to Arch users.

But sadly, I quickly went through most of the pages on the site. None of them meet the question above. I found even such instructions which are greatly discouraged or even forbiden. So the gotux links should be removed to protect our users from wrong information. -- Fengchao (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, honestly if those links were removed I don't think I'd miss them, however we all use different criteria for judging the value of a linked page, mine are probably just slightly more permissive than yours :)

I was also being carried away by my idea that if we link to a profit-making website, we are actually advertising it for free, but I recognise this is an exaggerated view of the situation, and more rationally I could even agree with you when you say that if somebody manages to make money by providing some kind of useful information, we shouldn't care too much.

About the fontconfig-infinality page, it's not linked from any of our articles, so this poses a further question: if a website contains a page with incompatible (in general) information, should we remove any reference to that website? Again, I wouldn't be so strict, but it's still only my opinion. Not mentioning the fact that I don't think using pacman -U for installing downloaded precompiled packages can be considered a "discouraged" or "forbidden" action, if that's what you were referring to (even though those particular packages are just the precompiled versions of 3 PKGBUILDs in the AUR).

Getting Involved#Community projects starts with "Arch's community maintains many projects. Feel free to include yours!", so if we remove those links we have to replace that statement with a definition of a pertinent link; I think Arch's community is also you, me, Xyne, TuxLyn and many other people using and contributing to Arch, so I think those links do suit the "Community projects" section.

Since I recognise I could be in the minority here, I'll start some polls, otherwise this discussion will last forever :)

Well, I did not means they do not contribute. I just do not think the wiki is "a Project". I check xyne's site again and find the projects page. The link in Getting Involved#Community projects is update to the project page. So it can stay there.

Also TuxLyn's link in Getting Involved should be updated, but I'm not doing it because I guess you two are waiting for TuxLyn himself to fix it, right? Let's see what happens then ;) -- Kynikos (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: TuxLyn fix most of the broken link himself. So I am fine with most of it except the link in Getting Involved. It says "Personal Arch-related wiki". But it is not. The site is more general than before. It is not arch specific anymore. So I am planning to remove this link. Any objection? -- Fengchao (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Polls

Only vote here with Yes -- ~~~~ or No -- ~~~~. Post comments to the discussion above (not required for voting), add more polls on this topic if you like.

I don't feel strongly either way on this, but I guess it looks a bit cleaner without the # in general, while it can be meaningful to signify a same-page link. So +1. --Emiralle (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Allowing user signatures on main article pages in limited situations?

I recently made some edits to the Broadcom wireless page under the Miscellaneous user notes section which, I now realize, contradict our current style guide for the wiki. I wanted to discuss whether we want to allow user signatures in very limited situations to facilitate maintenance of the article content (and also whether I should revert my edits).

This also raises the issue of whether a section like that should even be contained in the main article at all. Given the rather informal nature of a "miscellaneous notes" section, the material seems more fitting for the talk page than the main article. Maybe we should move such articles to the talk page, and simply provide a link to the talk page under the heading on the main article, so users are informed of this information's existence elsewhere? I do feel that this type of information is very useful, especially for a topic as finicky as wireless drivers can be.

How do you all feel about this?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)